Government Of T. N. vs S. Balasubramanian

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1995 Supreme(SC) 1054

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BEFORE S.C. AGRAWAL AND B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.
GOVT. OF T.N. AND OTHERS
Versus
S. BALASUBRAMANIAN AND OTHERS.
Civil Appeals Nos. 1093 to 1096 of 1995 with Nos. 1097 and 9696 of 1995 {From the Judgment and Order dated 6-7-1993 of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras in O.As. Nos. 1131, 2633, 2634 of 1990 and 3674 of 1991},
Decided on 31-11-1995
Advocates appeared:
V.R. Reddy, Additional Solicitor General (A. Mariarputham and Ms Aruna Mathur. Advocates, with him) for the Appellants; M. Kalyansundaram, Ms R. Raghavan and P.N. Ramalingam, Advocates, for the Respondents.
V. Krishnamurthi and S. Arvind, Advocates, for the Impleaded Respondents. Ambrish Kumar, Advocate, for the Intervenor.

Advocates:
A.MARIAPUTHAM, AMBRISH KUMAR, ARUNA MATHUR, M.KALYANASUNDARAM, P.N.Ramalingam, R.RAGHAVAN, S.ARVIND, V.KRISHNAMURTHY, V.R.REDDY

Headnote:
Constitution Of India - Article 226 - Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 - Section 5 - Section 22 - Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 1969 - Section 22 - Sub-Inspector - Resignation - Withdraw His Resignation - Respondent was a Sub-Inspector in Central Industrial Security Force - He tendered his resignation, which was accepted by Deputy Inspector-General (D.I.G.) of Force - Respondent then, applied to withdraw his resignation and in alternative prayed for re-enlistment in Force - Both these prayers were rejected - Respondent, then filed writ petition – Held, Contention of respondent which found acceptance by High Court is that refusal of sanction for re-enlistment by D.I.G. was arbitrary - Obviously, reason assigned to support refusal of sanction for re-instatement was that service record of respondent was not satisfactory - It was also pointed out that this prayer of respondent had been considered twice earlier and rejected after which respondent had not put forth any fresh ground requiring a change of opinion - High Court perused relevant files and has referred to notes According to a note made by respondent had made some false statements in his application - It is difficult to appreciate how exercise of discretion by D.I.G. under Rule 58 could be termed as arbitrary, on these facts - Other contention of respondent is equally devoid of any merit - There was thus no around on which respondent could be granted any relief in his writ petition - Appeal Allowed.

JUDGMENT

S.C. AGRAWAL, J.- Leave granted in SLP (Civil) No. 10107 of 1995.

2. These appeals raise common questions relating to reservation in the matter of appointment on the post of Deputy Tahsildar in the State of Tamil Nadu. The appointment to the post of Deputy Tahsildar in the Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service is governed by the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service (hereinafter referred to as the Special Rules). In the matter of reservation, provision is made in Rule 6 of the Special Rules. Prior to its amendment in 1977, the said Rule provided as under:

"6. Reservation of appointments.- Subject to the provisions of Rule 5(d), rule of reservation of appointments (General Rule 22) shall apply to appointments to the category of Deputy Tahsildars in each district."

3. General Rule 22 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules (hereinafter referred to as the General Rules) prior to its amendment in 1967 provided as under:

"22. Reservation of appointments.- Where the Special Rules lay down that the principle of reservation of appointments shall apply to any service, class or category, appointments thereto shall be made on the following basis:

(a) The unit of appointments for the purpose of this rule shall be hundred of which sixteen shall be reserved for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and twenty-five shall be reserved for the Backward Classes and the remaining fifty-nine shall be filled on the basis of merit.

(b) The claims of members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and the Backward Classes shall also be considered for the fifty-nine appointments which shall be filled up on the basis of merit; and where a candidate belonging to a Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe or a Backward Class is selected on the basis of merit, the number of posts reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes or for Backward Classes, as the case may be, shall not in any way be affected.

4. By GOMs No. 1588 dated 11-7-1967, Rule 22 of the General Rules was substituted by the following provision:

"22. Reservation of appointments.- Where the Special Rules lay down that the principle of reservation of appointments shall apply to any service, class or category, selection for appointment thereto shall, with effect on and from the 1st of July, 1967, be made on the following basis:

(a) The unit of selection for appointment for the purpose of this rule shall be hundred of which sixteen shall be reserved for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and twenty-five shall be reserved for the Backward Classes and the remaining fifty-nine shall be filled on the basis of merit.

5. By GOMs No. 695 dated 6-6-1971, the percentage of reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes was raised to eighteen per cent and reservation for the Backward Classes was raised to thirty-one per cent. By GOMs No. 1256 dated 20-6-1977, Rule 6 of the Special Rules was amended and substituted by the following provision:

6. The amended Rule 6 was not published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette. The validity of the said amended rule was challenged before the Madras High Court in a writ petition (Writ Petition No. 3691 of 1983) which was allowed by a learned Single Jud

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1995 Supreme(SC) 1054

Cases Referred (6)